Sunday, July 27, 2014

I have seen more than one study challenging the utility - and even sensibility - of recommending an increase in the consumption of fruits and
vegetables as a means to maintain or lose weight.
In the US, the recommendation is either just a general eat more or a more specific eat at least 5 servings.
In other countries, for example Australia, the recommendation is 2
fruits and 5 vegetables. Walter Willett
and the folks at HSPH recommend more vegetables than fruit.

To be clear, non-starchy vegetables, specifically, and some fruits have been shown to improve health, possibly
through their antioxidant properties. But
recently, using Eat More Fruits and Vegetables as an obesity
prevention/treatment strategy, has come into question. I have been concerned about the
recommendation for some time, and that is why I promote Willett’s new food
pyramid over the USDAs food guidance.

My concerns about fruit and vegetable promotion and all
food related promotion is that people don’t hear, because its seldom said, eat
more of this (x) INSTEAD of that (x).
People do not get the message that adding health promoting foods
such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, healthy oils, fish, etc. needs to be
qualified. The healthy foods are
particular and only stay healthy if they remain nutrient dense (e.g., potatoes are a starchy
vegetable which we do NOT need to increase, and kale is GREAT, kale cooked in fat back/butter is NOT GREAT).

Of course, fruits and vegetable calories are of a higher
nutritional value than ones from chips, hotdogs and soda, but 1) the choice of
fruit (e.g., a plum vs kiwi) or vegetable, 2) the preparation of that fruit or
vegetable, 3) the size of that fruit or vegetable (i.e., jumbo fruits
(bananas, oranges, apples = 2 or 3 servings), and 4) the overall amount of
calories consumed will determine if adding fruits and vegetables to ones diet
aids in weight loss. The bulky,
nutritious, fiber rich peppers, summer squash, onions and mushrooms should bulk
up one's plate and reduce the caloric density of a meal– these foods should replace (or reduce) meat and
pasta for instance.

Two studies released this month,(Charlton et al., 2014; Kaiser et al., 2014), found that increasing fruit and
vegetable intake did not lead to weight loss and in some instances, led to
weight gain. The Kaiser et al study used robust criteria to evaluate randomized control trials (RCT) and though the RCTs themselves had
limitations, the review of them was sound.
In the authors’ words, the upshot is this….

Purchasing and preparation
barriers need to be addressed.
Interventions should provide more instruction on how to prepare
vegetables in such a way as to not increase their energy content (such as not
preparing vegetables with fat (eg not frying or serving with butter)… and….Although many fruits and vegetables [F/V] have
demonstrable positive health benefits, recommending increased F/V consumption
to treat or prevent obesity without explicitly combining with methods to reduce
intake of other energy sources is unwarranted (Kaiser, et al).

One of the main reasons I started my You Tube channel was to
show people how to cook foods without turning them into calorically dense meals
or snacks. So, do eat more fruits and vegetables as you eat LESS meats, breads, and desserts.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Recently, the NY State Court of Appeals rejected a request
to reinstate the sugary beverage Portion Cap Rule proposed by former NYC Mayor
Michael Bloomberg. The court stated that
the rule, which would have limited the serving size of sugary beverages* to no
more than 16 ounces, would be an infringement on individual autonomy. If
individuals had driven the increase in serving sizes and no evidence existed to
support public health law, this would be a fair argument.

Economists tell us that in a properly working free market, businesses
respond to demand. In this case, it would mean the beverage industry is responding
to our demand (i.e., collective autonomy) for super-sized drinks. Of course, the
government would be wrong to step in just because our demand made us fat
especially if fatness were benign (which it’s not).I assume that is what the Court is thinking; consumers
instigated the new normal. But is that what happened? It seems to me, and I grew up with the
increase in everything, that the beverage industry decided that an 8 ounce cola
with about 10 teaspoons of sugar was not sufficient a serving; the beverage
industry decided that upwards of 20 ounces and 24 teaspoons of sugar was more
appropriate.You and I did not decide
this.

Of course, people in NY have a right to as much soda as they
like; this is America.And if this were a soda ban instead of a serving
size cap, I’d be one of the loudest voices against it.It isn’t though. The rule is an attempt to return us to pre obesity-epidemic
portion sizes, sizes that changed unbeknownst and independent of us.I feel certain no one hoped sodas would have
200 more calories. Very few of us purposefully consume extra empty calories.So, I have to wonder whose autonomy Judge
Pigott and the Court are honoring here.

Because I don’t think it’s Mayor Bloomberg and the NYC Board
of Health who are trying to manipulate our behavior; I think it’s the beverage
industry.The mighty beverage industry
pushes overconsumption and Bloomberg’s mighty brand of paternalism seems just
about right to counteract it. In fact, Bloomberg and NYC have a history of
doing the right thing for health.For
example, they put a price floor on a pack of cigarettes, banned smoking in
restaurants, bars and parks and raised the minimum age to purchase tobacco to
21.Maybe it is just coincidence, but
New York now has one of the lowest rates of adult and youth smoking in the
country.I don’t see any reason why
Bloomberg’s efforts to curtail obesity should be any less effective.

This is how I see the Portion Cap helping.A 24-ounce soda is a trigger to consume
excess calories just like a smoking area is a trigger to smoke.If the 24- ounce soda is off the table, the
lure of value pricing and social norms cancels out and consuming the
appropriate amount of calories becomes more likely, feasible and possible. This is a great help to those who want to
control their dietary intake and it does not prevent others from having as many
16-ounce sodas as they choose.

True, I am a public health policy advocate, but I have also benefited
from public health policy on a personal level. I am a former smoker and someone
who has maintained a 30-pound weight loss for over 14 years.I find that whatever makes smoking harder
makes quitting easier and whatever makes calorically dense choices harder makes
maintaining a health promoting weight easier.I am not naïve or authoritarian; people who want to smoke will find a
means to do so and people who want to drink gallons of sugar-sweetened
beverages will do that too.In America, we
have a legal right to make bad choices.But I am American, too, and I have a right to an environment which
enables me to make good choices, an environment where I don’t have to fight the
‘all you can eat and drink, value sizing’ mentality.That is my autonomy and I’ll take all the
Mayor Bloomberg help I can get, thank you very much.

*a sugary beverage is one that contains 25 or more calories
per 8 ounces

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

I am going to tell you about a recent study* that tested to see if chocolate, dark or milk, improved walking for persons diagnosed with PAD. I am omitting a lot of important scientific information, but you can read the journal article here.PAD stands for peripheral artery disease, which I have blogged about previously; a person with PAD has limited blood flow in the arteries of the lower legs because the arteries are constricted or narrow. If you or someone you know has PAD (20% of people over the age of 70 who live in Western countries do; see citation 2 in the research publication), you are likely familiar with the term Intermittent Claudication. During exercise or walking, a person with PAD may experience severe pain in their lower legs because of a lack of blood flow, this is Intermittent Claudication.Intermittent Claudication limits the activity of persons with PAD and finding a way to reduce this, which means addressing the blood flow problem, is very important. Loffredo et al (physician/scientists in Italy) knew, from other studies, some of the physical, under the skin things that happen in persons with PAD (e.g., substances that act on the inner lining of the blood vessels are impaired, toxic residue from cellular actions build up because the body doesn't clean them out (oxidative stress)). The scientists were particularly interested in the oxidative stress. Previous research had found that oxidative stress was a main reason for the constricting of the lower leg arteries, the accompanying pain and the inability to walk long or far. [there is much more to the mechanisms and I refer you to the article for a more thorough explanation]The terms more of us may be familiar with are "free radical damage" and "antioxidants." Antioxidants cause chemical reactions in the body, under the skin, that, in a series of interactions, can reduce the oxidative stress (caused by free radicals). One powerful antioxidant (polyphenal type) is cocoa. In past studies, cocoa has helped to dilate (make bigger) arteries, thus leading to improved blood flow. If the blood flow improves, the pain should reduce and people with PAD might walk farther, longer, or both. That is what the scientists wanted to test. If they gave people chocolate, would their condition improve, at least for the short (immediate) term.The Loffredo et al study was very small and considered only a proof of concept - in other words, no causation can be implied about the chocolate! The scientists invited persons with moderate to severe PAD, who were stable, and who were not smokers, to participate. After the initial screening, which did 'reject' 5 persons because they smoked (which is untenable to me - that they smoke when they have blood flow problems). Only 20 people participated in the study and each person participated in both parts (i.e., crossover design) and there was no control group (another reason why it is just a proof of concept study). I have to make an aside before I talk about the results. Researchers always give a little information about the sample in a study. This allows us to see how much those people are like us, or like some larger group. In looking at these sample characteristics, the average age was 69 and there were twice as many men as women, 90% had high cholesterol and all of them were on statin medications (among other drugs), the average BMI was 27 (overweight) and most tellingly, 80% of the people in this study were former smokers. The scientists used several tests that diagnose and monitor PAD, including an Ankle Brachial Index and an FMD (flow-mediated arterial dilation), as well as a treadmill test, to assess the main effect (a reduction in Intermittent Claudication, increase in walking time or distance). They collected blood and did additional tests to determine the mechanism of effect - for example, how did the chemicals in the blood (neurotransmitters and such) change after the intake of either type of chocolate and does that change explain the main effect, which is walking distance and time. The participants were tested once after they ate dark chocolate, and weeks later, once after they ate milk chocolate, or vice versa. (This is why it was a test of the immediate effect of chocolate consumption only.)The upshot is that dark chocolate (dark cocoa) had a positive effect on many of the markers, including the most important one, walking; and milk chocolate did not. The persons in the study were in bad shape to begin with, only able to walk a little more than the length of an American football field (110 meters or 120 yards). After ingesting the dark chocolate (40 grams) the participants, on average, were able to walk 122 meters or 133 yards. If you prefer to think of this in feet, the people increased their walking distance by 40 feet. Also, the time that they could walk before the pain became unbearable was 124 seconds (~ 2 minutes) before the dark chocolate and 142 seconds (20 more seconds) after the dark chocolate. [Important note: the distance and time spent walking was on a treadmill, it is possible that walking off the treadmill, inside or out, would be more difficult.] Some of the other measures or markers were different after the ingestion of chocolate and some were different depending on the type of chocolate. Of importance, the FMD was different between chocolates, specifically there was more dilation after consumption of the dark chocolate. The chemical tests showed that the dark chocolate itself had more polyphenol content than the milk chocolate and the scientists are suggesting that the antioxidant properties of the polyphenol-rich dark chocolate is responsible for the positive findings. Yes, this is very cool. Researchers are on the way to finding the means to moderate Intermittent Claudication so that people with PAD can be more active. Of course, an even better thing would be to reduce the number of persons who have PAD. Risks that we have control over include being overweight, smoking, not exercising and having high cholesterol and or diabetes. I noted in parentheses that the amount of chocolate the patients were given was 40 grams. I assume this was regular chocolate and therefore would contain 200 calories. I assure you that it takes more than 20 seconds of additional walking to burn 200 calories (more like an hour or two).I do use dark cocoa in cookies and cakes, sweetened with sucralose; I like the taste of cocoa and when added to the antioxidants I consume in my (calorie fixed) plant based diet, I imagine it is health promoting.

Subscribe To

disclaimer

The contents of this site including text, graphics, images, links and other material are for informational and educational purposes only. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Please seek the advice of your physician, registered dietician, or other qualified health provider regarding your personal health and activity level.

This information is for the general public and is not meant to treat or cure any illness. Use common sense. Remember to believe nothing that doesn't make sense to you. Call 911 for emergencies.this site, including text, graphics, images, links The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.

Ads

The ads on this site do not in anyway relate to my personal beliefs and I have no control over their content.